Water is one of the most crucial substances for life. In order to maintain their public health, each and every country has defined standards of drinking water quality, beyond which the water is considered harmful for human health. The current study compares physical, chemical, and biological standards of drinking water quality for the USA, EU, Japan, India, and Bangladesh, considering 4 physical parameters (namely, color, odor, taste, and turbidity), 35 chemical parameters (such as Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), Phosphate (PO43-), Sodium (Na), Phenolic compounds, Nitrite (NO2-), Arsenic (As), Aluminum (Al), etc.) and 2 biological parameters (i.e., Coliform (Fecal) and Coliform (Total)). The data has been collected from several secondary sources and since processes of data collection for water quality differ from one another, this aspect has been ignored. No variation has been found in biological water quality standards along with physical quality standards of the considered regions. In order to find out the differences in chemical parameters, standard ANOVA and pair-wise F-test have been conducted. There was no disparity among chemical parameters in ANOVA test. Moreover, thanks to the few excessive values of the standards (as in case of Bangladesh), the COD value is 4 mg/L, whereas in other countries this parameter is much less. However, the chemical parameters of water quality standards in Bangladesh vary significantly from other countries. Besides, there has been no variation among the standards of other countries, even though they are located in different continents. Most interestingly, despite being neighbors, Bangladesh and India differ significantly in this regard.

Research science used to inform public policy decisions, herein defined as “Policy-Science”, is rarely subjected to rigorous checking, testing and replication. Studies of biomedical and other sciences indicate that a considerable fraction of published peer-reviewed scientific literature, perhaps half, has significant flaws. To demonstrate the potential failings of the present approaches to scientific Quality Control (QC), we describe examples of science associated with perceived threats to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia. There appears a serious risk of efforts to improve the health of the GBR being directed inefficiently and/or away from the more serious threats. We suggest the need for a new organisation to undertake quality reviews and audits of important scientific results that underpin government spending decisions on the environment. Logically, such a body could also examine policy science in other key areas where governments rely heavily upon scientific results, such as education, health and criminology.